Syria - Volume of Al-Qaeda Propaganda Forecasts Syrian Army Success

The success of the current Syrian government operations against al-Qaeda in Idleb governorate can be measured by the volume of U.S. propaganda against it. A similar situation occurred when Aleppo was liberated from al-Qaeda's control. Certain U.S. media, (non-)government-organizations and politicians obviously prefer Takfiri al-Qaeda rule in Syria over control by the legitimated secular government.

According to the various streams of such propaganda Idleb is crowded with hospitals, bakeries and little children who all get "barrel bombed" by the nefarious Iranians and Russians while no Takfiri militant can ever be seen.

Amnesty International‏ @amnesty - 3:41 PM - 12 Jan 2018We’re outraged by the attacks on civilians in #Idlib governorate which hosts thousands of internally displaced people from across #Syria. They now have nowhere else to flee to anymore.

The tweet is decorated with a picture of al-Qaeda's first aid mercenaries, the White Helmets, who are paid by the British and other governments and receive propaganda cover from British media.

Kenneth Roth @KenRoth - 11:47 PM - 12 Jan 2018Putin-Assad fooled Great Negotiator Trump into believing Syrian "de-escalation zone" would mean a halt in attacks on civilians rather than just a lull to regroup.

Roth links to a Washington Post editorial which finds that fighting al-Qaeda in Idleb is not in the interest of the United States:

[Trump officials] are playing down the Idlib fighting on the grounds that the area is dominated by al-Qaeda-linked rebel groups. ... While extremist groups control a large part of Idlib, Turkey says moderate Free Syrian Army units are involved in the fighting — an assertion that we also heard from several FSA leaders now visiting Washington. ... [I]f the offensive is successful, the result will be the further entrenchment in Syria of not just Russia but also Iran, the Assad regime’s closest ally.

The United States, in short, stands to lose — again — to Russia in Syria.

Liz Sly‏ @LizSly - 9:06 PM - 11 Jan 2018This Syrian journalist, standing in an open field while bombs explode all around him, is very lucky to be alive. No flak jacket or helmet. You can barely hear him above the explosions. He and his colleagues are very brave.

The neoconservative WaPo editors picked their idea from the notorious propaganda outlet Institute for the Study of War. When the de-escalation zones where introduced in Syria through negotiations between Russia, Iran, Turkey and the U.S., al-Qaeda and the Islamic State were excluded. Associated Pressreported at that time:

[The deal] also calls for the continued fight against IS and former Al-Qaeda affiliate Fateh Al-Sham Front

The ISWrecognized that at that time and pointed out that al-Qaeda is the real danger in the deal:

The ceasefire deal will provide Al Qaeda with time and space to further network itself within the opposition, including through local governance and security structures. ... Syrian rebels have expressed dissatisfaction over U.S. demands to abandon the fight against President Assad and decreased U.S. support to rebels. Al Qaeda will exploit these grievances and attempt to fill the vacuum. Al Qaeda will position itself to eventually spoil the agreement, but will do so in a timeframe that supports its own interests.

That al-Qaeda is the main ruling and fighting power in Idelb, is excluded from the de-escalation deal and tries to break it is now conveniently forgotten. In its newest efforts the ISW even claims that attacks on al-Qaeda violate the de-escalation agreement:

That is an obvious lie. The various UN Security Council resolutions on Syria demand "to eradicate the safe haven [al-Qaeda and ISIS] have established over significant parts of Syria". But the ISW now believes that fighting al-Qaeda is not in U.S. interests:

A pro-regime campaign to seize Idlib Province is not in America’s interest. The extension of Assad’s control produces a corollary extension of Iran’s military footprint and leverage in Syria. ...Neither Turkey nor Russia can deliver an outcome in Syria that supports US interests. The US should help Turkey block pro-regime operations that will cause further humanitarian catastrophe. The US must refrain from accepting either Russia’s diplomatic play or Turkey’s relationship with al Qaeda, however. The US must instead retain freedom of action and avoid the temptation to outsource American national security requirements to regional actors already at war in Syria.

What does that actually say? What action would the ISW or the Washington Post editors like to see? Turkey attacking Syrian and Russian forces in Syria to prevent further attacks on al-Qaeda? An occupation of al-Qaeda held Idleb by U.S. forces against the will of Syria, Turkey, Iran and Russia? By what means?

Neither the ISW nor the Washington Post offer concrete advice. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch do not further any idea on how to solve the issue. They seem to prefer that civilians living in Idleb stay under the deadly ruled of religious fanatics who's ideal of "liberated women" (video) are walking black tents.

Thankfully larger scale military action against Syria by either Turkey or the U.S. is now unlikely. The bloody liberation of Idleb governorate from al-Qaeda will proceed. The propaganda wave against it lets one assume that it will be successful. This makes it even less understandable why the above outlets continue with their efforts. What again do they hope to achieve?

thanks b.. the lack of success on the ground is probably proportionate to the degree of propaganda spewed..as you note - same deal in the earlier war in aleppo.. funny how it never happened with raqqa, but that was because the usa's saints were doing it...

would be nice if the usa regime propagandists stopped using such words as regime to define others.. it must be embarrassing for them at some point.

About successes of SAA: in the last 2-3 days the map of control changed quite a bit. While the Tigers were stopped in front of Abu al-Duhur town and airports, and had to repel the initially successful attack on their west flank, some chaos ensued to the east, with many "moderate jihadists" switching to ISIS, ISIS advancing againt jihadists and having some fights with SAA, and in the same time, non-Tiger SAA forces advanced, now from at least 3 directions and they seem to be in the process of taking over the entire area to the north-east of Abu al-Duhur: some putative defenders defected to ISIS, some are going west, perhaps to defend Abu-al-Duhur.

Soon Aleppo will be connected to the rest of government controlled Syria by at least two additional highways, each much shorter than the current Khanasser route, and it will proceed to regain its place as the most economically important city of Syria. Jihadists will be consumed by recriminations and apparently futile search for effective leadership.

Thank you b, I was confused by what seemed to be happening/not happening there. In answer to "What again do they[US] hope to achieve?" What they want to achieve is chaos. It's their brand.:)
It feeds the end of civil liberties at home, justifies ever increasing reductions in public services funding in favor of ever increasing military expenditures, all a win-win for Team Chaos.

Washington and Foggy Bottom surely are running (have run) out of concrete options if all they can do is trot out #HolocaustSyria2.0. Bravo on HRW and AI for jumping on the bandwagon and further discrediting themselves in the eyes of the world. Less and less people are buying into their BS, and the ones who do are getting quieter and quieter. Even Ms Sly (what an apt name!) had to go into damage mode, saying she didn't "praise" Abu Omar, merely just commenting on his objective "bravery", LO-f-ing-L.

With Erdogan coming out and stating that Manbij and Afrin must kick out the YPG within a week or else the Turks will, I'm wondering if that's the reason for Putin's seemingly unending patience with the Turkish Sultan-in-waiting. Let Turkey did the dirty work of smashing the Kurds before delivering (willingly or not) the area back to Russia and Syria. Once again, I'm envisioning a de facto buffer zone being granted to them for their troubles. Either way, Damascus, Tehran, and Moscow will continue to reclaim the entirety of Syria.

i agree with amnasty huma rights watch brookings and chatham house rules in these regardings.
like libya and saddam hussein new hitler and now assad new new hitler we need to help these innoscent.
we all read the story arc of anne franks trapped in the cellars of belgo antwerp writing in her diary with ball point pens not yet invented.
we saw the bbc film of the kinder transport think of the childs.we said nevers again and here we are agaian and and again and a gain.
always the usual suspects let us get behind erdogan,netanyahoo,donald trumpet and his generals cia and the city of london eyes wide shuts masons.

give israel the compensations funds and depleted uranium munitions to finish this arab iran problem off for at least the half life of plutinium 232/

The Hats and uniforms are too clean. People that rely on safety equipment fetishize their stuff for good luck, and have serious demeaners (another selfie , dude?). I realise that the Oscar Awards (and all TV) is a national security interest, but the Art Director, the script girl, and continuity people of Bell Potted-grr Productions only deserve Emmy's. There, I fixated it for me.
Nepotism has brought progressively less- worthwhile people to power. !Jeb! versus Hillarity was the card, but the coin landed on it's edge, with another spoiled (with love) knob in search of ideas. How about a reconcilliation tour for all that approved of this shit. I thought, maybe, start at Abu Graib, but that's as far as I got.
Good health, and luck in love for the change of seasons b, and all

9
tim bellend pottinger is a fine man who loves childrens like many of margaret thatcheds queens men.
nobody has done more aprt from sir jimmy of saville for charity in this regards.
so what if mi6 sas assassin are in white hell mutts this is a goodly thing.
it is only when you have killed many for oded yinon and the city of london new york
only when you have much blood on your clothing from masonic ritual can you have the corrected mindset to do the brave messy tight filming shooting schedules of the hell mutts.
bell potty syriania produxtions may have been given a billion but imagine how good the movies and story would be if they had of been given a decent budget.
tim bo does the best he can with the pounds,dollars and sheckles he has

"... The bloody liberation of Idleb governorate from al-Qaeda will proceed. The propaganda wave against it lets one assume that it will be successful. This makes it even less understandable why the [Institute for the Study of War and The Washington Post] continue with their efforts. What again do they hope to achieve?"

There's a term used in economics and behavioural psychology, "escalation of commitment", that describes the thinking and behaviours behind this phenomenon of throwing more effort, time, money and resources into a failing project in the vain hope that one day the pay-off (in spite of past results) will be huge. A related phenomenon, well known in economics, is the sunk cost fallacy. In popular parlance, this is "good money being thrown after bad".

In the context of this MoA post, the sunk costs are the extent to which media outlets like The WaPo, The Guardian, the BBC and others have gone, the amounts they have spent, and moreover the risks they have taken with their reputations (and the consequences that would follow) and in judging the gullibility and loyalty of their audiences, in propping up a false worldview that continues to fall apart, to appease their masters.

Thank you b for this post and may the year be kind on your spirit. Yesterday while chasing middle east news I came across a bs story of chlorine barrel bombs being dropped on poor defenceless al qaeda in east damascus. Laughed and laughed at the pathetic propaganda drivel and then there was a picture of a brave defender with a çlean, freshy ironed handkerchief covering their nose and mouth. I poured a margarita and sipped tequila and visualised peace. No wonder the mexicans despise the yankees, what ugly neighbours.

A member of the White Helmets has confessed before the cameras his manipulations during the Syrian War, in which they staged alleged massacres including underage children to discredit the government of Bashar Al-Assad.

The White Helmets are a part of Al-Qaeda created in 2013 and, as it could not be otherwise, there is nothing else behind that the war propaganda, the smoke screens and the media intoxication. Let's see some headlines of fascist media, only a few, not to exhaust the patience of the long-suffering reader:

- The only crack of light in a particularly dark world (La Sexta)
- The 'white helmets' that save lives amid debris in Syria (El País)
- The 'White Helmets': volunteers offering primary care to the wounded in Syria (Doctors Without Borders)
- Who are the 'White Helmets' and why do they consider them heroes (One Magazine)
- The anonymous saviors of Syria (The Day)

This false humanitarian organization has not only falsified its work but has been one of the elements of struggle used by imperialism against Syria. They are the humanitarian front that detracts from the reality of a war of aggression.

Kooshy@13 - "IMO, no one in the world except for the Langley boys, care to read, fallow or listen to what the shitholes like amnesty international or Human fuck watch says.

Huh? Why would we care? We're busy gathering actionable (profitable) capital markets intel for our bosses at Goldman-Sachs. When we're not doing that, we're feeding fake leaks to Fox News for Trump's consumption and running our arms ratlines to various Iranian opposition groups. We're at war with them, you know.

Syria is so... how should I say? So yesterday here at Langley. I think the U.S. State Department knuckle-draggers and a few MI6 bankster-waterboys trying to remain relevant are still involved. There *is* still a boatload of MB jihadi support cash to be had from the stupid Qataris (at least until we regime-change them with our UAE mercs - then their damn gold is OURS). The Israelis and their armed forces (CENTCOM) are still flailing about in Syria, but accomplishing nothing since their embarrassing defeat. We pulled the plug on our Rojava project, but Mattis won't let go of that train-wreck quite yet. Not sure why, but we don't really care - the Pentagon is mostly irrelevant as usual. Turkey is... well, we're not sure what Sideshow Recep is up to. Don't care there, either, but certainly wouldn't want to be a Kurd nowadays. They knew the backstabbing was coming. Hope they're prepared.

The empire is desperate, its whole Middle East policy is bound up in regime change in Syria [the low hanging fruit] without such change in Syria, Hezbollah and Iran grow stronger and the US friends Israel and Saudi Arabia grow noticeably weaker. In fact the plight of the middle East depends on Syria surviving as an intact independent sovereign state. The last card the US has is a partitioned North Eastern Syria led by however many Kurds are influenced by US promises. If such an entity is set up [outside Syrian Sovereignty] It would be landlocked and at war with Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran with no hope of success. I suspect all those opposition states will make the Kurds an offer they cannot refuse [some kind of administrative devolution], firmly within a Syrian sovereign state, and on the basis that their are no US troops on Syrian soil. Those negotiations are only weeks away at Astana

Institute for the Study (and Promotion) of War is led by 4-star Jack Keane, who is on Fox Business News and Fox News five times a week, several shows a day. He has a stellar career of failure to earn those 4-Stars.

The Ghoul and his staff of specialists, most of whom have no or weak credentials, gin up the need to wage war everywhere.
Ukraine, Korea, South China Sea, Xinjiang, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Libya (again), Horn of Africa, Sub-Sahara, and wherever a Russian, a Chinese, an Iranian has ever set foot. Everywhere is strategic and in need of war.

Glad to see the ISW featured here for the dolts and idiot warmongers they are.

The basis of their ideology is the Russians, Iranians and Chinese are in an unholy alliance to knock off the US from its hegemonic rule of the world. Imagine the fear and loathing produced by that concept. The US must be the one Kingdom ruler of the planet, Space and Cyberworld. Anything that changes that paradigm is evil and must be bombed forthwith.

If only General Jack Keane had more cruise missiles—

He'd "Study War" on every hectare of Earth held by a Chinaman, Russian or Iranian. General Jack loves to fire those missiles.

Erdogan is desperate for a success to boost his prestige after the succession of diplomatic failures: The EU says NO to access negotiations, the USA threatens of economic sanctions over Turkey's illegal deals with Iran, Russia is pushing to destroy Turkey's Syrians opposition proteges and the Syrian army may cause another wave of refugees 'invading' Turkey.
Erdogna now announces military action on the Syrian Kurds, an invasion of Syrians lands.
That would be another disaster and Erdogan will come out even weaker.
Hopefully, elections in 2019 may see the end of his political career.

kooshy@24 - Awww... You still think that the US deep state objectives in the Middle East are 'successful regime-change' and we just keep getting our asses kicked. Yeah, sure... that explains everything. Let's go with that.

(this may come as a shock but this is what the American people, not their leaders want)

The headline findings show, among other things, that 86.4 percent of those surveyed feel the American military should be used only as a last resort, while 57 percent feel that US military aid to foreign countries is counterproductive. The latter sentiment “increases significantly” when involving countries like Saudi Arabia, with 63.9 percent saying military aid—including money and weapons—should not be provided to such countries.

The poll shows strong, indeed overwhelming, support, for Congress to reassert itself in the oversight of US military interventions, with 70.8 percent of those polled saying Congress should pass legislation that would restrain military action overseas in three specific ways:

* by requiring “clearly defined goals to authorize military engagement” (78.8 percent);
* by requiring Congress “to have both oversight and accountability regarding where troops are stationed” (77 percent);
* by requiring that “any donation of funds or equipment to a foreign country be matched by a pledge of that country to adhere to the rules of the Geneva Convention” (84.8 percent).

The survey found that 78 percent of Democrats, 64.5 percent of Republicans, and 68.8 percent of independents supported restraining military action overseas. “Rarely,” noted the report, “does opinion research reveal issues that enjoy shared sentiments on a bi-partisan level.”

The poll brings home just how divorced the Beltway—and its think tanks, media outlets, and political class—is from the expressed desire of a large majority of Americans for a responsible and reasonable foreign policy, a policy that, arguably, has been absent since the end of the Cold War.

I must confess that I failed to realize that Amnesty International was little more than a front for US/UK foreign policy interests until a few years ago. Here is some history that I just learned last week (surely many here are and have been aware of this). Peter Benenson founded AI in 1966 and was the first executive secretary from 1961-1967. In 1966 he complained that British intelligence had infiltrated AI at the operational level and the Board of Directors. Later he claimed that the CIA had also penetrated AI. These claims could not be confirmed by an "independent" investigation and Benenson was forced out as Director.

In any case it looks like AI as well as HRW are barely concealed fronts for American and British foreign ministries and their intelligence agencies. And this has been going on for many decades.

31
so what if mossadcia and mi6mossad run amnasty internashpullit is it better to infiltrate the host and direct it rather than let it run about lost and out of control.
where would are lambs be without are judas goats
up in the hills and not on the plates no sir that wil not do
every organ and system has been vaccinated against anti semitism by the prudent injection of sayanim hasbara anti virus

"The poll brings home just how divorced the Beltway—and its think tanks, media outlets, and political class—is from the expressed desire of a large majority of Americans for a responsible and reasonable foreign policy, a policy that, arguably, has been absent since the end of the Cold War."

yes, and yet nothing ever changes in all of it.. there is money in pushing war and the prospect of war.. the think tanks, media outlets and political class all know this, as they cater to the financial, military and energy complex.. they could just as easily work for the white helmets, or be lucky enough to get a gig like liz sly at some foreign bureau of bullshit... kenneth roth - another loser who has made his fortune peddling lies and supposition thru hrw is another example... but indeed - it is not what most americans want and that can't be stated often enough.. thanks for your post highlighting this.

@31 toivos.. thanks.. i didn't know that history.. i have seen too many fabrications spread by hrw to believe it was anything other then a slightly more sophisticated way to spread propaganda.. many folks won't question hwr thanks the guise of a humanitarian organization which is obviously the right image to use to get a pass.. image is everything, substance often times, not so much..

The US plan is to maintain 3 enclaves of opposition to Damascus. Idlib, east of euphrates and East Ghouta. It was always in the plan to seize the land east of the euphrates. They will attempt to set up an alternative Syrian government there in Raqqa. If hostilities arise, they will establish a no fly zone east of the euphrates.

"The poll brings home just how divorced the Beltway—and its think tanks, media outlets, and political class—is from the expressed desire of a large majority of Americans for a responsible and reasonable foreign policy, a policy that, arguably, has been absent since the end of the Cold War."

Personally, I think that a jab against the Beltway is not warranted, from my experience it is a rather inoffensive structure, and quite frequently you can drive there at a decent speed -- I mean, you do not get traffic jams all the time but only at certain hours. The poll was about rather inane proposal of a new legislation, so "overwhelming support" means that American public likes inane legislation, something like putting Lake Champlain on the list of Great Lakes. Is it really inane? Military actions should have

1. Clearly define goals. Like spreading truth, justice and American way. If this is not sufficiently clear, look into you old copies of Marvel comics, and if you do not have any, order from an online vendor of your choice. Another good clear goal is throwing a gauntlet in the face of tyranny. More recent, heeding the needs of victims of the worst tyrant EVER, topping Attilla and Gingis Khan (explanation to protesting Mongolian embassy: we are specifically claiming that Gingis Khan is not the worst ever, so please do not take an offense). And most seriously, how one can define what a "clearly defined goal" is? We know the current practice -- some lowly official in DoS will head a committee that will duly certify that the goals are clear.

2. Congress should have oversight and accountibility concerning where our troops are stationed. At the first glance, seems clear. Like authorization to invade Tuvalu, which I always advocate, should not be used to occupy New Zealand. But we would need some logistic chain, and thus a few troops guarding the supplies for Tuvalian campaign that are positioned in New Zealand. Following that logic, few countries are not graced with at least several active duty members of US armed forces, like several US Marines guarding the embassy. So we do have men in New Zealand already. Perhaps we want to restrict their activities in some way? But which way -- as I wrote, not clear.

3. ... “any donation of funds or equipment to a foreign country be matched by a pledge of that country to adhere to the rules of the Geneva Convention” (84.8 percent). He he. Another lowly official in DoS will have to produce the pledge.

=====

It would be a bit bolder to forbid activities that violate the law, including UN Charter and other international treaties that were ratified before "we knew any better." Even if it just requires another pile of paper work that uses twisted logic, that would be somewhat more tangible.

Which way Erdogan goes is perhaps key to what happens in Syria next. On one hand the US are backing the Kurds, plus the attempted coup, on the other, Russia is destroying the jihadists in Idlib that are interchangeable with his support/voter base. On the one hand he will work with Russia if that helps stop Kurds grabbing more territory, on the other he will work with US/Saudi ect to prevent defeat of of his jihadi's in Syria. Erdo also recently moved some air defences into Syria.

Enjoyable checking on the Syrian Civil War map lately, watching Erdo, MBS, Langley boys being rolled out of southern Idlib, south west Aleppo so quickly.

reply to 44
The Daily Mail, bless 'em have a story up on that "attack" and are getting trashed by their readers, no one is buying the story. Nice to see how quickly false flag stories are outed now in most MSM by their readership when allowed to comment.

What do they hope to achieve? Seriously, has nobody come to grips with the fact that this is all about economics, that’s why America and Russia are contesting Syria? Like the Soviet citizen said, you can’t trust the governments on this, they lie about themselves, but not about their opponents.

“13. (S/NF) Sheikh Khalid voiced concern about the proposed Qatar-Iran-Turkey oil pipeline. This pipeline would only strengthen Iran. The FM thought it would be wiser if the pipeline were redirected to run through GCC countries instead of Iran. He stated that Qatar should be convinced of this as well.
CLINTON “

That’s the game; the US doesn’t want Iran and Syria and Lebanon to open a gas pipeline to Europe; Russia wants Gazprom to have access to that corridor, end of story. Of course, with global warming on the horizon, we should all just go with China’s renewable energy play, something neither the Russia-bots nor the America-bots want to contemplate, as it puts them in second-class status, right?

That’s what they hope to achieve, anyway. . . Just a couple of sad ex-superpowers trying to retain their relevance in a changing world. The whole Middle East should kick out both Russia and America, and instead cut a deal with China for vast renewable solar power production, that’s the way forward. The only obstacle is the House of Saud and the Israeli nuclear weapons program, both of which have to be talked down gently - let them know they won’t be excluded, that’s all.

All big diesel rigs spouting pollutants into the air like there's no tomorrow...which there isn't...as long as you need to fill zillions of walmart and amazon shelves with crap...

yeah, whenever the bin laden wars finally wind down, and the middle kingdom gets its polyester, err, i mean silk road up and running, i think we'll see the last onslaught of economic activity on planet earth...

I fled the urban jungle for hillbillyland 25 years ago...have a couple of horses on the farm...beautiful animals...

Some of my neighbors even have restored or new-built carriages...there's guys setting up shop making wood wagon wheels...horse tack etc...

Nothing like a ride in the country in a nice carriage...four-in-hand with some good trotters and you will get there quick enough...

I'm still punching my card until I live there permanently...but this is the life...we put in a truck garden every year and have enough to feed not just our family but plenty to give away...the health aspect is incredible...

Ever had a real hobby farm egg...the kind where a handful of hens is out grazing all day...?

I only mentioned China...what happens when another billion Indians and two billion Africans all have cars too...and all those trucks shipping in crap for even more zillions of shelves...

Solar is a PR stunt driven by the mighty semiconductor industry...yes...solar panels are wafer semiconductors...

Surely the only endgame that US, Saudi and Israel are interested in is whether the natural gas (2/3rds in Iran, 1/3rd in Qatar) eventually travels via the Shia crescent or via Saudi and a Syria under their control

FB @ 51 says: You would need to cover every square foot of land surface on earth to make enough electricity to run the modern world..

Say FB do you have a link to this claim. I have wondered about this myself. I did a quick check and found that there is about 5x more "unused" solar energy potential than current fossil fuel consumption across the planet. You do seem to have some technical knowledge about how this world works so I am interested in how you came up with that above statement.

to get a precise answer as to how much solar panel area is required to meet the entire world energy needs is not a difficult problem...

...but it does involve a lot of work and much data about hours of sunlight in various places and latitudes...how much the sun energy on a plane varies with inclination [ie sun angle at various times of day] etc...

There is much more to consider however...which many of these PR claims do not even know are real physical facts...

Let us start with the basics...

The foundation of our planet's entire biosphere is our atmosphere...

The atmosphere is driven by one thing and one thing only...energy from the sun...

The sun heats up the land surface...and to a lesser extent the sea surface by means of radiation...

This causes an increase in temperature of those surfaces...both land and water...which then pass that heat on to the air layer directly in contact with those surfaces...by means of conduction...

Once those lower strata of the atmosphere have been warmed...the process of natural convection takes over and distributes that heat energy throughout the atmosphere...

This is most evident in rising air columns on which eagles and other birds glide...[as well as sailplanes and hang gliders]...

All of this is what drives our entire planetary climate system...all of our planet's weather is driven by one single energy source...the sun...

Now...using your figure of one fifth of that energy to be diverted to making electricity...what do you think would happen to our biosphere...?

It would be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions...

You cannot simply drain away a big chunk of the driving energy of our biosphere and just wave it off...

That is not how nature works...this is all part of the science of Thermodynamics...

Consider for a moment what happens when you put a refrigerator in a room...

the refrigerator motor will give off heat to the room...while taking heat out of the space within the refrigerator...

In fact...it will give much more heat off..than it will take away...for the simple reason that no energy conversion can be 100 percent efficient...and the refrigeration thermodynamic cycle is far from even 50 percent efficient...

I said "5x more "unused" solar energy potential than current fossil fuel consumption across the planet."

I granted in an earlier post that you knew stuff about drones that I do not. Fine. However this is a topic that I do know some things. Your response is full of irrelevant filler. I know all about the things you are saying. My statement was "5x more "unused" solar energy potential than current fossil fuel consumption across the planet." Now when I said "unused" I am factoring in the fact that solar energy supplies photosynthesis and that solar panels cannot compete with that natural process. Unused solar energy means the regions above parking lots, house roofs, highways and the great deserts with little plant activity. That goes without saying. It does not refer to farm land, grass lands and the great forests covering NA, Africa and SA.

Your entire response is an elementary lecture in why all of solar energy influx impacting earth is not available for humans to use to make electricity. This question has been addressed by scientist for the last century. What I referred to is solar energy that humans could practically extract without destroying plant life on the planet. The amount of that energy is 5X what is currently being consumed by earth people.

Go back to your text books FB and stop giving us elementary lectures in the earth's energy balances.

Listening to Toibois lecturing someone about how gosh darn smart Toibois is, never ceases to amuse.

Especially when, in the middle of it all, it becomes obvious heshe doesn't even seem to understand the implications of what FB has just told him, let alone understand the implications of what he himself is claiming.

For example the village idiot tries to deflect by waffling on about photosynthesis, despite it not being mentioned, thus showing his ignorance and inability to understand the points made regarding the workings of the atmosphere, and how solar energy keeps the temp of our atmosphere at a level which allows life as we know it, to exist.

All this while pompously attacking others for, it seems, simply knowing and being able to explain how the atmosphere works and how solar energy (in the form of heat) is distributed throughout that atmosphere (hint: not by photosynthesis).

While photosynthesis undoubtedly plays a major role in energy distribution, it plays only a minor role in heat distribution.

There is in fact a lot more to it than just the basic temperature distribution mechanism I briefly described...

The ocean currents are driven by the same solar energy absorbed by the water at tropical latidues...

Also the rising air currents create our atmospheric pressure systems...ie as warm air rises its pressure decreases...eventually creating a low-pressure system...some of which are so huge they are cyclones [aka hurricanes in the western hemisphere]...

These pressure distributions are crucial also to the rainfall cycle of evaporated water from the seas eventually being caught up in these rising air currents to the point where they condense into precipitation...

Toyvos is making a farce out of what I tried to call attention to...which is the serious disinformation surrounding solar power...

As always there is some interest group or other behind these things...

Glad my efforts here are at least useful to some...that makes it all worthwhile...

FB responds with this: So answer me this...when you extract this 'unused' solar energy to make electricity with solar panels...what energy is going to drive our planet's atmosphere and climate system...?

OK. Photons from the sun that support photovoltaic cells are those that are produced by the 6000 degree black body radiation from the sun-- i.e. those photons responsible for visible light but mostly in the blue spectrum (those in the UV spectrum never make it to the surface). 80% of that energy impacts over the earth's oceans (about half of this does not hit the surface but is dissipated as heat which is big factor in the heat that drives our planet's climate system) and those photons that do hit the surface support photosynthetic life in our oceans (yet again, this process losses about 60% of the energy as heat while the rest becomes fixed in high energy chemical bonds through photosynthesis that becomes the basis for all animal life in the oceans). The same process occurs over land for the remaining 20% of solar energy.

So what I referred to usable energy from the sun is a small fraction of the sun's energy impacting earth. If we extract all of that small per-cent of high energy photons into photovoltaic cells to produce electricity it would have any affect on the earth's heat balance. One reason is that 90% of that energy will be dissipated as heat in the process of extracting the free energy for doing work. (You should go back to your undergrad physical chemistry notes and see the difference between total energy and free energy available for work).

FB you should sit back and think a bit -- you are getting in over your head.

You are only piling on more nonsense and trying to do some fancy footwork by mentioning things like black-body radiation which has nothing to do with this discussion...

Neither our sun nor any star is a black body since they are not in thermal equilibrium with their surroundings...

And the black body math is only used as a rough way to approximate [first order] the energy celestial bodies emit...this is an application of astronomy...and has zilch to do with how the sun's energy powers our atmosphere...

So I have already exposed yet more BS from you...

Here is more...

The UV spectrum is absorbed in the ozone layer of the atmosphere...so your brilliant observation that it doesn't make it to the surface is quite an astounding insight...quick...somebody send a telegram to the Nobel committee...

You say this...

'...One reason is that 90% of that energy will be dissipated as heat in the process of extracting the free energy for doing work...'

Which is gibberish...

What energy is 'dissipated' as heat...?

'What 'free energy'...?

What 'work'...?

You have just conflated several completely different physical concepts...

Light energy is dissipated somewhat as it passes through the air in our atmosphere...ie it loses intensity...

The process of this is mainly Rayleigh scattering...which is the reason for the sky being blue...

But there is no loss of energy in Rayleigh scattering...because it is elastic...

There is also Raman scattering that occurs where photons are scattered by air molecules which are excited to higher vibrational energy levels...

Raman scattering is an inelastic method which does result in energy loss...

This excitation of the molecules by the photons increases their temperature obviously and hence the transfer of heat energy from photon to air molecule...

However...

The vast majority of light molecules are scattered by the Rayleigh mechanism...so there is no energy loss...

FB @61Now...using your figure of one fifth of that energy to be diverted to making electricity...what do you think would happen to our biosphere...?

It would be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions...

Toivos @62
Now when I said "unused" I am factoring in the fact that solar energy supplies photosynthesis and that solar panels cannot compete with that natural process. Unused solar energy means the regions above parking lots, house roofs, highways and the great deserts with little plant activity. That goes without saying. It does not refer to farm land, grass lands and the great forests covering NA, Africa and SA.

FB @64You see I didn't mention a single thing about photosynthesis...or 'plant life'...

Sic. And a catastrophe for the biosphere. And for good measure:

FB @68Which is gibberish...

What energy is 'dissipated' as heat...?

'What 'free energy'...?

What 'work'...?

So FB has not the basic understanding of thermodynamics to know the difference between total and free not available energy. @FB, go read up on Gibbs free energy, assuming that you have a clue about differential equations. Then go read up on the conservation of energy principal and the typical efficiencies of photovoltaic and heat engine (solar thermal) systems. Hint: Carnot cycle, energy source, energy sink.

Johan, yep you point it out. FB does not have the slightest understanding thermodynamics. Free energy, heat and work are very precisely defined concepts that this poor boob does not understand at all. All that flack about light scattering, elastic, non-elastic, etc are important details but they do not negate thermodynamic laws but do provide some insights into the mechanisms responsible for, well heat transfer and work.

For the thermodynamics of chemical reactions (electrochemical, photosynthesis, carbon fixation, etc) Gibbs energy is usually used to describe the process. It seems to be an archaic usage but yes free energy refers to Gibbs energy. So this is a trap?? You are starting to sound downright unhinged.

Your contention that , if I have understood the intent of your garbled attempts at pseudo-scientific gibberish, some approx 40% of solar energy somehow "does not reach the surface" (of the planet) but yet (miraculously?) is somehow "dissappated as heat" is frankly noting but retarded.

Your level of idiocy seems to increase dramatically the more you speak on this subject.

I don't know where you learned any of this nonsense you've been apouting but you really should go back and demand a refund.

As FB points out "that means they mostly pass through the air without heating the air itself..."
You will disagree with that of course but then that's exactly what I would expect a complete idiot to do

The readers of this thread deserve a 'refund' from Toyvos...or at least an apology...

He has been trying to pull the wool over people's eyes here with crap about black bodies...Gibbs free energy and other completely unrelated and off the wall garbage...

I feel I have an obligation to readers like yourself...to which Toyvos is doing a great disservice by sowing confusion...to set the science straight...

This jagoff doesn't have the ethics to be involved in science in any way if he thinks he is allowed to deliberately confuse people and muddy issues that are crystal clear, even to the layman...as you have demonstrated...

He is going to be completely exposed here for the fraud he is...you watch and see...he should do the honorable thing and just admit he went out on a limb and couldn't find his way down...

He refuses to answer a yes or no question...

A simple question about his very own statement...

That tells you everything about his dishonesty...

I felt pity for him until this point...but not anymore...now he must pay...

FB in my response @74 I said "It seems to be an archaic usage but yes free energy refers to Gibbs energy." That seems clear to me that you have a serious problem in reading comprehension. Also thermodynamics (and Gibbs equation) applies to energy flows and work even if the energy comes in the form of photons.

Your outbursts on this thread was the result of my criticizing your statement above, namely:

Have you ever done the math on solar energy...?

You would need to cover every square foot of land surface on earth to make enough electricity to run the modern world...

Yes you actually said that. That is blatantly wrong. You have attempted divert attention to that error by going into a long discussion on thermodynamics which you have proven you do not understand at all.

However returning to your first error on solar energy if all of the sun's solar radiation that reaches the earths surface exceeds human energy needs by well over 1000 times. Given that solar panels cannot cover the entire earth (for example the oceans and those that support plant life) it has been estimated that there is usable space to produce 4 times as much electricity equal to current human energy consumption.

Therefore, your original statement was egregiously incorrect and you have amplified the problem by displaying your laughable comprehension of thermodynamics. You have greatly exceeded that ancient Chinese saying: at times it is better to sit silently and be thought a fool than to open mouth and remove all doubt.

Congratulations!
That's the only coherent thing you've said since you decided not to respond coherently to the simple question Toivos posed at # 60.
Where did that "every square foot of land surface on earth" horseshit come from, FB?
That's a rhetorical question, btw, so don't bother wasting more space by pretending to answer it.

'...found that solar parks altered the local climate, measuring cooling of as much as 5 degrees Centigrade under the panels during the summer...'

Gee who would have thought...?

Not our fake genius Toyboy...who tells us that we could run our entire planet without any disruption to the earth's crucial energy balance...

Here is the peer-reviewed paper [pdf] of this one single study...which lists plenty of citations of relevant peer-reviewed sources for further review...

We can of course expect that no further research funding will be extended to these kinds of efforts...[which are sorely needed...]

Since the political and corporate machinations are not going to be stopped by such frivolous questions as actual science...

And since the deafening roar from the hoi polloi like yourself...and the fake experts like Toyboy who have leaped on the solar bandwagon without looking...is going to drown out any rational voice that advises basic scientific prudence and a fuller understanding...

'...massive-scale installations of solar panels can generate enough power for human usage now and in the future, although there are consequences that involve impacts on the climate system...

'...Such a large number of solar panels redistributes the incoming solar radiation and changes the local radiation balance,resulting in changes in atmospheric circulation, thus affecting regional and global climate...'

I said quite clearly that removing the huge amount of solar energy that would be required to satisfy all human energy needs would seriously disrupt the earth's energy balance...

The paper FB linked in #88 says:

We find that solar panels alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar panels. The conversion of this electricity to heat, primarily in urban areas, increases regional and global temperatures which compensate the cooling effect. However, there are consequences involved with these processes that modulate the global atmospheric circulation, resulting in changes in regional precipitation.

In other words, solar energy is not removed from the earth, it is simply moved, e.g. from deserts to cities, and that is what has an impact on global climate.

Thermal energy is turned into electricity...not moved somewhere else...

It's turned into electricity which is then moved somewhere else, where it is used.

The electricity to power radio tv and other communications...?

That's one I hadn't considered. I suppose broadcast signals (electromagnetic energy) can find their way into space, and thus cool us off a bit. I don't see that being affected by the source of the energy though. Nor do I see it as a big factor in any case.

What about the electricity to power cars and other transportation...?

Why do electric cars have limited range? Because of losses in the conversion of chemical energy to electric energy to kinetic energy. If there were no losses, the cars could run forever. But there are losses, and they all manifest as heat. So all the energy you put in your car ends up as heat, whether it came from solar panels or fossil fuels. (Excepting the case where you drive up a hill and stay there, thereby converting some to potential energy, and maybe some other cases I'm not thinking of.)

I don't pretend to know what the major consumers of energy are on this planet. I understand lighting is a big one, and I imagine (from listening to the local power companies) that heating and cooling are significant too. But when you use energy, it seems to me you can either store it or convert it to another form of energy, or radiate it, as you pointed out. But converting it to another form isn't actually using it; when it's actually used, things get hot. You can tell how much electricity a computer is using by how much heat it gives off. Flipping bits about only takes energy because of inefficiency: charging gate capacitance and so on.

This discussion has veered way off the rails. Not much to do with Al-Qaeda propaganda any more. Probably time to move on. Sorry we disagree.

This will damage Trump with his base, particularly if a couple of the bases are hit with ISIS/Al Qaeda/HTS SVBIED attacks. Reducing the involvement of the United States military abroad was one of the more important commitments he made to his base and now he has broken that commitment and I suspect quite a few of his base are disappointed. If its in the region of a couple of hundred thousand of them then there goes the next presidential election for Trump and the Republicans. If the Democrats forget about Russia-gate because there is nothing there but focus on his foreign military involvements and provided the Democratic candidate is not a Clinton, the presidency is for there for taking by the Democrats. Having Tulsi Gabbard on the ticket would help as she is one of the few Democrats the "deplorables" might trust. Unfortunately I suspect the Democrats are too stupid and too attached to the Wall Street/MIC money spigot to do anything about this. The other reservation I have is if Trump is stiffing the generals in the White House and sometime in the future pulls the plug on all those interventions then he'll remain in the White House for another four years.